Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[KWED]

I'm getting a headache. See you when / if you want to discuss the topic of the thread.

No need. You have just conceded that abortion is not murder and is morally acceptable.
My work here is done.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The authority of Jehovah God - the supreme ruler of the universe.

It actually comes from the State. Just as many States have also denied this right, with some killing over it. Sort of like how the State ultimately denied that "god given right" to slaves.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No need. You have just conceded that abortion is not murder and is morally acceptable.
My work here is done.

Why do you, or others who do this, post such a thing when clearly this is not the case?
Such "gotchas" are immature, don't you think?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you, or others who do this, post such a thing when clearly this is not the case?
Such "gotchas" are immature, don't you think?

I recently did the same. When one is dealing with what appears to be a rather immature poster it is sometimes a bit of an emotional relief to respond in the same vein.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The Biblical narrative is that circumcision is a sign of the Mosaic Covenant, not that foreskins offend God. As far as the biblical narrative is concerned no other group is required to take on the practice. IMO, circumcision being ubiquitous in the Afroasoatic world suggests that the Biblical account was constructed to serve as a religious justification for a practice that was already well established among all Semitic peoples anyway. The practice predates the religion.

As for Christians, there is no religious justification for it. Insistence on circumcision seems to me to be a mostly American thing. Here in Australia neither I or any one I grew up with was circumcised. (Not that I made a point in looking).

Thanks for this. Very informative.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now consider the Atheist who doesn't believe God made anything, but we are just all animals, with some being more savage than others, and war is natural.
When men act out their nature... why does the Atheist complain?

Just cuz something is natural doesn't mean it should
be deemed acceptable, eg, disease, war, crime, religion.

 

[Wildswanderer]

In some cases, yes. It's why some countries have assisted dying laws, and more are jining the list.

Slippery slope.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So what was the relevance of bringing it up?

Facepalm!

 

[Glaurung]

I acknowledged that in my post -- but you cut that part out. I guess you didn't want it to get in the way of your argument? My point was that there are easier, less painful and less drastic ways to render such a sign. A tattoo, for example.

My point is that your point is irrelevant. You can sneer at and mock the Biblical account all you want, but like it or not circumcision remains non-negotiable for Judaism. So any laws restricting circumcision must have a religious exemption. (Primarily for Jews).

As long as there is a religious exemption (again mostly for Jews and Muslims) I would have no issue with laws that otherwise restrict the practice. There is no basis for it in Christianity and it would only take a generation or two before the "but daddy was circumcised" type rationales fall into irrelevance.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So any laws restricting circumcision must have a religious exemption.

According to whom?

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

Honestly, I never thought about circumcision as cruelty until I started studying religion.

When I was younger I thought it was primarily a health/ hygiene based decision. When I finally understood it is an ancient religious practice it became disgusting to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My point is that your point is irrelevant. You can sneer at and mock the Biblical account all you want, but like it or not circumcision remains non-negotiable for Judaism. So any laws restricting circumcision must have a religious exemption. (Primarily for Jews).

As long as there is a religious exemption (again mostly for Jews and Muslims) I would have no issue with laws that otherwise restrict the practice. There is no basis for it in Christianity and it would only take a generation or two before the "but daddy was circumcised" type rationales fall into irrelevance.

There are still Christians that follow the Jewish laws. Why wouldn't there be an exception for them? Your interpretation of the Bible is different. So what? There's is different from yours.

It is better to base the argument on harm done to the person that has no choice. Female genital mutilation is easily banned. It serves no legitimate purpose. In the past circumcision may have provided a legitimate purpose but that does not appear to be the case any longer. As I have pointed out the best argument for male circumcision is that women seem to prefer it. In reality that does not appear to support the practice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The authority of Jehovah God - the supreme ruler of the universe.
Hence why no man can stop the worship of Jehovah's people.
Individuals they can kill, or imprison, but imprisonment does not stop us. Death - only momentarily.
I thought you knew this.

What did Jesus say to the man that said, "Do you not know that I have authority to release you and I have authority to execute you?"
Jesus said, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been granted to you from above." John 19:8-11

Sounds you have very strong convictions and would see it as a great injustice if someone tried to stop you from following them.

So why would you ever want to deny someone else - your own child - the chance to follow their convictions?

What do you think Jehovah says about hypocrisy?

 

[Glaurung]

According to whom?

I think the right for Jews (and Muslims) to practice their religion is an important consideration. I think circumcision is distasteful, but I recognize its requirement in Judaism as coming from a genuine religious commitment.

There are still Christians that follow the Jewish laws. Why wouldn't there be an exception for them? Your interpretation of the Bible is different. So what? There's is different from yours.

I think the religious requirement must be an established one. Idiosyncratic claims to a religious feeling aren't good enough. Coptic and Ethiopian Christians would have a case (I think I've read that those communities require it of those born into their faiths). But Evangelicals who want to feel a 'connection to Abraham' by having their sons circumcised should be told to take a hike.

 

[Revoltingest]

My point is that your point is irrelevant. You can sneer at and mock the Biblical account all you want, but like it or not circumcision remains non-negotiable for Judaism. So any laws restricting circumcision must have a religious exemption. (Primarily for Jews).

What of religions that practice FGM, including FGM-lite,
which is on par with male circumcision?

I see no reason to remove the child's bodily autonomy
for the parents' religion. Many religious practices have
been banned, eg, slavery, animal sacrifice. Traditions
can change, & religions can survive.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think the right for Jews (and Muslims) to practice their religion is an important consideration. I think circumcision is distasteful, but I recognize its requirement in Judaism as coming from a genuine religious commitment.

If I made the laws there would be no religious exemptions. It's obscene that religion gets a free pass on child abuse because it's "religion."

 

[Glaurung]

What of religions that practice FGM, including FGM-lite,
which is on par with male circumcision?

No tolerance for FGM, IMO.

FGM and male circumcision are not comparable. Neither Islam or Christianity require it in any case.

If I made the laws there would be no religious exemptions. It's obscene that religion gets a free pass on child abuse because it's "religion."

I understand your position and I am sympathetic. But I think the right of Judaism to exist is more important than the desires of those who find male circumcision distasteful.

 

[Revoltingest]

No tolerance for FGM, IMO.

Seems sexist, ie, bodily autonomy
for females, but not for males.

FGM and male circumcision are not comparable. Neither Islam or Christianity require it in any case.

There are different kinds of FGM, some
less extreme than male circumcision.
I wager that it's political & social power
of Judaism that results in this inconsistency.
Muslims lack such power in the west.

I understand your position and I am sympathetic. But I think the right of Judaism to exist is more important than the desires of those who find male circumcision distasteful.

Judaism would continue to exist if circumcision
were delayed until the child was able to freely
make the choice.
Claims that it would kill the religion are histrionic.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You can assume that as the uncircumcised man has that dense cluster of nerve endings still intact.

As I mentioned before, there are plenty of guys who suffer from premature ejaculation who would LOVE to be a bit less sensitive. Less sensitivity may well mean that more stimulation is required, but you can't just assume that the end result is in some way inferior. It's POSSIBLE that guys who are less sensitive and require more stimulation end up having more satisfying orgasms. My point is that it's impossible to know for certain.

 

[Revoltingest]

As I mentioned before, there are plenty of guys who suffer from premature ejaculation who would LOVE to be a bit less sensitive. Less sensitivity may well mean that more stimulation is required, but you can't just assume that the end result is in some way inferior. It's POSSIBLE that guys who are less sensitive and require more stimulation end up having more satisfying orgasms. My point is that it's impossible to know for certain.

So someone other than the affected person gets
to make the decision for them without their consent?
Nah. That's not a good rationale for taking away
bodily autonomy.